Originally posted by NaplesXLook, Jim I put up with your wackiness because of it's entertainment value. But don't fool yourself into thinking you are some kind of revolutionary deep thinker.

My statement was that the world needs to "play nice" not just go along with whatever the US does blindly. I worded it that way specifically.

There are many examples of the 'world" (Franco-German-Russion) obstructing the US in it's efforts to uphold the UN's mandates. The long Iraqi history with the UN is riddled with such examples.

That was where that statement was directed. I hope I cleared that up for you. If not, let me know.

Maybe my liberal translator is on the fritz, but I don't see where I was doing any squirming in that post. Please, define your view on that concept for me.

But Nappy,

The U.S. went to Iraq against the UN's wishes! Bush thumbed his nose at the UN over this!

I think your whole view on this is on the fritz.

When ever you get cornered someone has to explain the obvious to you.

Plus that isn't the excuse Bush used to go to war with Iraq. There would have been a much stronger protest ( so strong the war wouldn't have happened ) if he hadn't used the WOMD threat scenerio. Bush knew this that's why he used it.

Nappy no one's buying. Why are you keeping this up?

As far as " wackiness " goes you've cornered the market.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Despite the fact that NaplesX refuses to debate the issue of Napalm use in Fallujah preferring to talk about Bush and why people won't debate - all in a thread about Fallujah, the issue moves on. As usual he has been left behind by events.

It seems that Toady has some explaining to do about the use of the banned weapon to the UK Parliament.

Quote:

Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.

Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq.

America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world still using the weapon.

This is the Bush morality.

Use of banned weapons, lying about the use and using them on people for the justification that they 'wanted to have banned weapons'.

It's a fucked up psychopathic madness - and people not only voted for it, they will lie and insult (and who knows what else ?) to protect it.

Voting didn't work. We need another way to take these psychos down - if we don't we'll all be sitting here in years to come discussing why we didn't.

Yes, people like NaplesX too.

Wake the fuck up. It's getting late.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

The U.S. went to Iraq against the UN's wishes! Bush thumbed his nose at the UN over this!

I think your whole view on this is on the fritz.

When ever you get cornered someone has to explain the obvious to you.

Plus that isn't the excuse Bush used to go to war with Iraq. There would have been a much stronger protest ( so strong the war wouldn't have happened ) if he hadn't used the WOMD threat scenerio. Bush knew this that's why he used it.

Nappy no one's buying. Why are you keeping this up?

As far as " wackiness " goes you've cornered the market.

Hey, could you fit the word 'cornered' in somewhere one more time?

Anyway, do you really want to talk about the obvious? I don't think that you do. Why do I think this, you ask?

Well, throughout this whole thing, you have totally ignored the rampant corruption inside the UN and among some of it's nation-states. You focus on the Bush admin and stick to the story that he misled the world, when some of the nations and their governments themselves misled the world in a far more damaging way.

Each day that passes, produces more and more evidence that the UN admin knew what was going on and accepted bribes from SH himself! Kojo is right now on the verge of being indicted which takes his father one step closer to the unemployment line, let alone the same fate.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brian, that there is no way that France or Russia would have ever voted to remove SH or anything even close. And if you look back, who was it in the SC that objected and blocked the US efforts to remove SH? That's right.

Kinda on topic, they found 2 chem/bio facilities in Falluja, which possibly could be evidence of SH weapons programs. Also , it is likely that some of the chemicals were supplied by, wait for it... France and Russia.

Investigations into Kojo and family have found that Kojo has been receiving funds (payoffs) related to the UNOFF right up to May of this year (I may be off a month, I can't remember)! The UN leadership has had their pockets lined by the UNOFF program and SH. What makes you think that they would do anything to jeopardize that, let alone on their own?

The UN and SH, with the help of France, Russia, Germany and others, have put the security of the whole world at risk, and all you want to is quibble over the importance Bush and his admin put on ONE of the many reasons to remove that evil regime?

It is being said that millions of dollars meant to go to Iraqis went to terrorists and possibly even OBL and AQ! Those in the know feel that money is also funding the 'insurgency/terrorism" right now in Iraq! UN money! Being used to kill US and UK soldiers, and lest we forget thousands of Iraqis.

Seg, if napalm was used against set rules, then someone should be reprimanded. If innocents were killed, then the punishment should be more severe and the families should be reimbursed accordingly. I highly doubt that Bush even knew about this until it already happened. So if you expect, Bush's head on a pike, then it will probably not happen. That is why you are so up in arms over this - you want to use this as another feather in your "Bush is evil" cap. At least it would seem to me.

i don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that "France, Germany, Russia and others" are corrupt governments in varying degrees. at the same time, most of us here agree that the US government is no different in this respect. this is why we find it agonizing/amusing/incredible that you constantly ignore this fact in your arguments.

nobody here will argue with the fact that the "evil governments" above will base many of their decisions on economic interests. the difference, here again, is that most of us here know that the same applies to the US as well as any other government.

so france and germany supplied SH with dangerous materials. guess what? so did the US. as a matter of fact many in this administration personally oversaw such transactions. some even supported Bin Laden and his honchos.

all of the above are facts.

in all your arguments, you bitch about the corruption of "France, Germany, Russia and others" but you don't seem to mind the coruption within this administration. you bitch about the dealings of "France, Germany, Russia and others" with SH, but don't seem to mind that the people you voted for, did the very same.

this is called "double standard". this is what annoys us. this is why we sometimes call you all kind of things. this is why we doubt your intelligence/judgment on matters of such importance.

the difference between the corrupt governments of "France, Germany, Russia and others" (well not russia actually) and the corrupt government of the US is that the US was willing to go to war for its economic interests. furthermore, they knowingly lied to their own people, let alone the rest of the "world". your countrymen are dying right now. there are more terrorists in iraq now than ever before.

these are facts.

there are no WMD in iraq. this is a fact (they found SH, and it's a lot harder to find one person than to find factories that produce WMD).

i have replied in similiar manner to several of your posts. you ignored them most of the time. i realize that these are uncomfortable for you. feel free to ignore this one as well.

i don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that "France, Germany, Russia and others" are corrupt governments in varying degrees. at the same time, most of us here agree that the US government is no different in this respect. this is why we find it agonizing/amusing/incredible that you constantly ignore this fact in your arguments.

nobody here will argue with the fact that the "evil governments" above will base many of their decisions on economic interests. the difference, here again, is that most of us here know that the same applies to the US as well as any other government.

so france and germany supplied SH with dangerous materials. guess what? so did the US. as a matter of fact many in this administration personally oversaw such transactions. some even supported Bin Laden and his honchos.

all of the above are facts.

in all your arguments, you bitch about the corruption of "France, Germany, Russia and others" but you don't seem to mind the coruption within this administration. you bitch about the dealings of "France, Germany, Russia and others" with SH, but don't seem to mind that the people you voted for, did the very same.

this is called "double standard". this is what annoys us. this is why we sometimes call you all kind of things. this is why we doubt your intelligence/judgment on matters of such importance.

the difference between the corrupt governments of "France, Germany, Russia and others" (well not russia actually) and the corrupt government of the US is that the US was willing to go to war for its economic interests. furthermore, they knowingly lied to their own people, let alone the rest of the "world". your countrymen are dying right now. there are more terrorists in iraq now than ever before.

these are facts.

there are no WMD in iraq. this is a fact (they found SH, and it's a lot harder to find one person than to find factories that produce WMD).

i have replied in similiar manner to several of your posts. you ignored them most of the time. i realize that these are uncomfortable for you. feel free to ignore this one as well.

I agree with you. Thinking that a single even democratic countrie only act in the name of the absolute good, is like believing in Santa Klaus.

Originally posted by NaplesXHey, could you fit the word 'cornered' in somewhere one more time?

Anyway, do you really want to talk about the obvious? I don't think that you do. Why do I think this, you ask?

Well, throughout this whole thing, you have totally ignored the rampant corruption inside the UN and among some of it's nation-states. You focus on the Bush admin and stick to the story that he misled the world, when some of the nations and their governments themselves misled the world in a far more damaging way.

Each day that passes, produces more and more evidence that the UN admin knew what was going on and accepted bribes from SH himself! Kojo is right now on the verge of being indicted which takes his father one step closer to the unemployment line, let alone the same fate.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brian, that there is no way that France or Russia would have ever voted to remove SH or anything even close. And if you look back, who was it in the SC that objected and blocked the US efforts to remove SH? That's right.

Kinda on topic, they found 2 chem/bio facilities in Falluja, which possibly could be evidence of SH weapons programs. Also , it is likely that some of the chemicals were supplied by, wait for it... France and Russia.

Investigations into Kojo and family have found that Kojo has been receiving funds (payoffs) related to the UNOFF right up to May of this year (I may be off a month, I can't remember)! The UN leadership has had their pockets lined by the UNOFF program and SH. What makes you think that they would do anything to jeopardize that, let alone on their own?

The UN and SH, with the help of France, Russia, Germany and others, have put the security of the whole world at risk, and all you want to is quibble over the importance Bush and his admin put on ONE of the many reasons to remove that evil regime?

It is being said that millions of dollars meant to go to Iraqis went to terrorists and possibly even OBL and AQ! Those in the know feel that money is also funding the 'insurgency/terrorism" right now in Iraq! UN money! Being used to kill US and UK soldiers, and lest we forget thousands of Iraqis.

Seg, if napalm was used against set rules, then someone should be reprimanded. If innocents were killed, then the punishment should be more severe and the families should be reimbursed accordingly. I highly doubt that Bush even knew about this until it already happened. So if you expect, Bush's head on a pike, then it will probably not happen. That is why you are so up in arms over this - you want to use this as another feather in your "Bush is evil" cap. At least it would seem to me.

More squirming and drival.

Man you really can reply with a long paragraph and in effect say nothing.

Maybe Bush's head deserves to be on pike. Have you ever thought of that?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by bryan.furyi don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that "France, Germany, Russia and others" are corrupt governments in varying degrees.

So I could safely assume that we agree France, Germany, Russia and others are corrupt.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furyat the same time, most of us here agree that the US government is no different in this respect.

I think we need to further define what you mean by 'government'. For example. Are we talking only this admin, all admins, our form of government, one particular person or persons?

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furythis is why we find it agonizing/amusing/incredible that you constantly ignore this fact in your arguments.

I don't. But maybe if we define what we mean a bit better we can understand each other better.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furynobody here will argue with the fact that the "evil governments" above will base many of their decisions on economic interests.

I agree and this is not what is in contention here.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furythe difference, here again, is that most of us here know that the same applies to the US as well as any other government.

Again, I don't see much there I disagree with...

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furyso france and germany supplied SH with dangerous materials. guess what? so did the US. as a matter of fact many in this administration personally oversaw such transactions. some even supported Bin Laden and his honchos.

Ok, now read slowly...

You are right, that the US supplied SH and OBL. But here is the key... "at one time". Not after UN sanctions were placed on SH. This is key, because an intellectually honest person does not justify wrong actions with other wrong actions. Many people learned this when they said "but mom, everyone at school is doing it."

And let's examine why these things happened. SH helped the US put down the Iranians, who were perceived at the time a threat to the US. OBL and company helped defeat the USSR. Both endeavors that required allies. This is now a different time, and things are definately different.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furyall of the above are facts.

Right. But you are only including facts that can be used to your advantage and leaving out facts that are important to the overall understanding. And you are muddling things together from differing time-frames. You are in essence rewriting history. You may not see it that way, but I do.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furyin all your arguments, you bitch about the corruption of "France, Germany, Russia and others" but you don't seem to mind the corruption within this administration.

You make a good point. But I think you are misunderstanding defending something with accepting everything from that something as good. And on top of that you are equating actions of one party with another that are not necessarily equal, IMO.

I am totally with you on the whole corruption issue. But what I mind is every bad thing that happens is attributed to Bush's supposed (read unproven) corruption. It's like a snowball rolling downhill. People don't even have time to prove their last accusation true, before coming up with another. At some point they are forced to just accept the previous ones as true. A lot of accusations with only previous accusations as a so-called track record. Don't get me wrong many republicans did it with Clinton. A president is human and makes plenty of legitimate mistakes to criticise.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furyyou bitch about the dealings of "France, Germany, Russia and others" with SH, but don't seem to mind that the people you voted for, did the very same.

Once again you are confusing one set of circumstances with a totally different set of circumstances. Not to mention timeframe. And besides, how do you expect those people to know what will happen decades into the future? You can't, if you're honest. And again you use one set of 'supposed' wrongdoings to justify France's. You cant do that, if you are honest.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furythis is called "double standard". this is what annoys us. this is why we sometimes call you all kind of things. this is why we doubt your intelligence/judgment on matters of such importance.

It is not a double standard. It's only that, if you oversimplify the way you are here. You are making a huge amount of assumptions to say it is a double standard, IMO.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furythe difference between the corrupt governments of "France, Germany, Russia and others" (well not russia actually) and the corrupt government of the US is that the US was willing to go to war for its economic interests.

All wars have there reasons, and most boil down to just that. So I am not sure what you have a problem with. If you dissagree on some philosophical level, I will probably agree with you. But that rarely translates to anything that is feasable in the real-world. War will happen as long as there are people and money.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furyfurthermore, they knowingly lied to their own people, let alone the rest of the "world". your countrymen are dying right now. there are more terrorists in iraq now than ever before.

You are once again oversimplifying the situation.

The president going on intell (crappy intel no less) from the intell community that was gutted under the previous admin felt that SH and his regime were a threat to the US. If you don't beleive Bush, Then maybe you will beleive SH himself:

"Oh, men of our air defenses and our air hawks, from now on consider as non-existent their damned imaginary no-fly zones above 36 parallel and below 32 parallel. Strike with efficiency and competence, in the name of God, any of the aggressors' planes which violate the air space of your great country and everywhere in Iraq, now and in the future." 1996

"The Iraqi people and army have been led in the same way by those who led them against the aggression and arrogance of the United States and its willing and unwilling allies from 17 January 1991, the day of the Mother of All Battles, until today.

The forces of evil shall dig their own graves after they bring death unto themselves on every Arab or Muslim land that they attack

In this way, the faithful shall remain steadfast. Darkness shall be defeated. Clouds carrying no useful rain shall clear. And the sun shall shine ushering in an endless spring, blessed by God...

The forces of evil shall carry their coffins and die of their disgraceful failure, with their schemes backfiring on their countries. Or they will dig their own graves after they bring death unto themselves on every Arab or Muslim land, including Iraq - the land of jihad, the flying flag and an honourable stance - that they attack." - 2002

After the always present, threat of terrorism brutally materialised on 9/11/01, the presedent, no matter who it might have been, needed to reevaluate other threats around the globe. This admin felt that the nexus between terrorists and rogue-nations that support terrorism, posed a threat. SH did not hide his hate for the US, and even made public threats. He also sponsoed attacks on US interests around the globe along with what one could call terror conventions right in Bagdad.

Anyway, my point is, maybe what I see as a threat you don't see the same way. So that could be where our dissagreement lies.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furythese are facts.

Yes they are. But you left out some other important ones.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furythere are no WMD in iraq. this is a fact (they found SH, and it's a lot harder to find one person than to find factories that produce WMD).

I disagree. We have found plenty of CW and BW. Enough to prove that they were there. There is mounting evedence that there was truckloads of weaponry that went into Syria. So you may be right that the large stockpiles are not in Iraq. And I think that I agree with you. But that does not mean they were never there. And i have a feeling that it won't be long till we know just where in the world they are.

Quote:

Originally posted by bryan.furyi have replied in similar manner to several of your posts. you ignored them most of the time. i realize that these are uncomfortable for you. feel free to ignore this one as well.

No sir, you have acted quite childish in previous posts. You have resorted to calling names in previous posts. So yes, I ignored you. But this post shows signs of civility, and i applaud that and say thank you. And as you can see I am not uncomfortable at all discussing/debating with adults.

Do you mean aside from the stuff brought in by terrorists after the war started and the stuff the UN already had under seal before we broke security and allowed terrorists to loot the CW and BW to use against our soldiers?

Originally posted by groveratDo you mean aside from the stuff brought in by terrorists after the war started and the stuff the UN already had under seal before we broke security and allowed terrorists to loot the CW and BW to use against our soldiers?

Or are you including that stuff?

Let's not fool ourselves. Any materials that the UN supposedly 'locked down' were about as locked down as a new mercedes in the middle of the ghetto. My 6 year old could figure out how to get past that security.

Originally posted by NaplesXLet's not fool ourselves. Any materials that the UN supposedly 'locked down' were about as locked down as a new mercedes in the middle of the ghetto. My 6 year old could figure out how to get past that security.

Yes, of course aside from what terrorists brought in.

Escept that those 'locked down' items were still there when the US soldiers entered Iraq.

BTW, Giant, that was very funny!

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes--Franklin Miller.

Originally posted by NaplesXLet's not fool ourselves. Any materials that the UN supposedly 'locked down' were about as locked down as a new mercedes in the middle of the ghetto. My 6 year old could figure out how to get past that security.

No, they were locked down. They were there when we got there. Our soldiers and the imbeds with them took pictures. We came in, they were there. We left them unsecured and they were looted. It happened, why are you so incapable of admitting these obvious things?

Does it bother you to know that you are purposefully dishonest or has it become second nature on this topic?

Originally posted by groveratNo, they were locked down. They were there when we got there. Our soldiers and the imbeds with them took pictures. We came in, they were there. We left them unsecured and they were looted. It happened, why are you so incapable of admitting these obvious things?

Does it bother you to know that you are purposefully dishonest or has it become second nature on this topic?

Link.

It is very hard having conversations with some of you when all you want to do is argue.

Yes, you're right. Some of the locked down items were looted after the troops left the area. Some were looted before and some were still locked down.

I actually was never asked if I believed any of this to be true. So I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that I can't admit it.

Link? Come now. I told you guys I am done submitting links, for the most part, just to have you guys attack the source or me.

So I could safely assume that we agree France, Germany, Russia and others are corrupt.

Quote:

I think we need to further define what you mean by 'government'. For example. Are we talking only this admin, all admins, our form of government, one particular person or persons?

don't you see what is happening here? in the case of the "others" you find no need to "further define" or clarify things. you have no doubt that they are corrupt. ah, but with respect to your own government, it's: "well what exactly do you mean?" that's what some here have been calling "squirming".

Quote:

Ok, now read slowly...
... "at one time"

i can understand that you would like to see things this way. however:
SH was a ruthless murderous asshole from the beginning. how do you think he got into power. i'll give you a hint, he wasn't elected.
so, many in this administration had no problem dealing with a know murderer on a personal level. one could even say they helped make him what he is today.

Quote:

how do you expect those people to know what will happen decades into the future?

we pay our politicians to do this. to think exactly about these kind of things. what effects their decisions will have long-term. if these people are unable to do this satisfactorily (as proven above) then they are clearly unfit for the job.

Quote:

And again you use one set of 'supposed' wrongdoings to justify France's

nowhere have i justified anything that france does. from an analytical point of view i said that there is no difference in the motifs between france and the US. both are out for their economic assets. the differnce between the two is that france is trying to protect its existing assets in iraq, whereas the US is muscleing in on a market where it doesn't yet have a foothold.

Quote:

It is not a double standard. It's only that, if you oversimplify the way you are here. You are making a huge amount of assumptions to say it is a double standard, IMO.

IMO criticizing one entity for a particular set of actions while praising another entity for those very same actions, is "double standard" by my definition.
please don't even think about replying that the US invasion of iraq has nothing to do with economic interests. we know that the government is corrupt. we know that there are a lot of "military companies/industries" profiting from this war. we know that that these companies are big financial supporters of this administration (republicans in general). there are all sorts of personal/family connections to these companies (boards). if you can't connect the dots then you are naive. i have a hard time imagining the big guns at lockheed/haliburton saying: "you know what dubya, we think that rummy, dick and you should think this whole thing over. maybe we really don't need to go to war? maybe we can find a peaceful solution? war really is a terrible, terrible thing that should be avaoided at all cost."

Quote:

War will happen as long as there are people and money.

what a lovely outlook on life you have. i tend to beleive that we are quite capable of learning and improving. hell, that's what has made us so successful as a species. why should we want to give up our most valuable assset?

Quote:

The president going on intell (crappy intel no less) from the intell community that was gutted under the previous admin felt that SH and his regime were a threat to the US.

look, the president and his men many times said that there is clear and irrefutable evidence of WOMD and links between SH and AQ. there never was any irrefutable evidence of either one. it was dubya's call to make. if he can't distinguish irrefutable from refutable then he really isn't fit to govern. in the end he made the wrong call. i, personally, beleive that he did it knowingly. you beleive he was misled by others. in either case he is accountable. you know, that if it was a democratic president you would demand that he take the responsibility. that "the buck stops here".

Quote:

If you don't beleive Bush, Then maybe you will beleive SH himself:

i don't know what that is all about, but that gibberish sounds alot like what various evangelists and what else are broadcasting on a daily basis.

Quote:

But that does not mean they were never there. And i have a feeling that it won't be long till we know just where in the world they are.

i can see a carrot hanging in front of your face
don't you see waht's happening? first they say SH has WOMD and he is planing to use them against us. that is how they got the people to support the war. do you think the people would have supported going to war if they had said: "SH had some WOMD some time ago. his main interest for these is to threaten his neighbor Iran. we don't know where they are now but we are pretty sure we will find them soon". no. but that is all the evidence that is left.

Quote:

No sir, you have acted quite childish in previous posts. You have resorted to calling names in previous posts.

i called you child in one post. big fucking deal. you were continually refusing to understand the point i was trying to make about your "double standards". you called me a "lefty" which i object to.